Category Archives: Social Commentary

Okay not quite yet, but this kind of blue-sky thinking is the answer to ending our insane reliance on using fuel (usually through combustion) to heat water which in turn turns turbines to generate electricity. Now wind (and wave/tidal when they are more commercially viable), hydro and other forms of direct turbine generation (like natural gas) and solar voltaic are realistic options in generating power for our future needs.

Coal-fired plants currently operate at about 31% efficiency – as in less than a third of the stored energy in the coal is converted to electricity – and that figure doesn’t acount for transmission losses. Euractiv.com
Even if experimental coal gasification plants were to come online, they would still only operate at around 50% efficiency. DOE

Some modern fossil fuel plants could operate at up to 48% efficiency already, but this is the maximum owing to the laws of thermodynamics. Nuclear cannot operate at more than 30-32% efficiency at present, though designs currently at the experimental stage could get closer to that of fossil-fuel turbines Wiki, but again no higher because in both cases the temperatures involved prevent greater efficiency.
Now wind (30 to 59%) and solar (up to circa 30% and even 50% in the future)[ Livestrong ] efficiencies using current technologies don’t seem to compete in terms of energy conversion, but there is the added bonus that once the generating capacity is installed, the energy source is free and does not require a transport or massively industrialised infrastructure to supply it. Wave and tidal power, which are currently still in development, have the potential to be up to 99% efficient USAF and 80% NWE respectively.
Of course the decommisioning costs of renewable turbines and PV arrays are negligible when compared with the clean-up costs for fossil fuel and nuclear power stations – it seems to be quite difficult to find out what the estimated costs of decommissioning defunct power stations might be, which suggests that it will be high – especially with coal ( and all the toxic chemicals that don’t get burned like mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic and other heavy metals Wiki) poisoning the land and nuclear which produces 10000 metric tonnes of fuel waste per year worldwide, but also huge quantities of low-level radioactive waste (but still less than and less radioactive than coal fired power stations), for which there is still no reliable disposal method even after 60 odd years. Therefore, one can safely assume that the clean-up costs of decommissioning nuclear and fossil fuel plants woud run to (probably) hundreds of billions of dollars.
Step forward Donald Sadoway, Professor of Materials Chemistry at MIT giving a short talk at TED on the new liquid metal batteries that he has developed with his students (video below).

One Magnesium-antimony (Mg-Sb) battery about the size of a 40ft shipping container has a capacity of 2MWh – about enough for 200 homes. The technology is scalable (so smaller batteries could be used for individual houses, offices, workshops) and it is capable of dealing with the high temperatures that are associated with electrical surges (from rapid charging over a [relatively] short period of time). The metals, as the description “liquid metal” suggests are kept in a fluid state in order that the Magnesium can migrate down through the electrolyte when discharging (forming a MgSb alloy) and back up when charging (returning to ions), thus the battery has an operating temperature of around 700°C and is therefore only really practical for stationary use.

This battery which of course has no moving parts to wear or break or that need replacing, could spell the end of antiquated power generation – steam turbines (which coal, gas (mostly), oil and nuclear power stations all use) could be a thing of the past, using [relatively] common materials that are inexpensive, ( Sadoway et al [2012] give Antimony (Sb) = $7/kg and Magnesium (Mg) = $5.15/kg ). It is worth noting that there are massive discrepancies in available data for price of the minerals used in these batteries, but nonetheless it is apparent that their cost and availability are not in question. Indeed, they are very common and readily available. Lawmakers ought to start to take the remediation and clean-up costs in mind when considering commissioning new power stations, because then they would be far more likely to opt for batteries such as this combined with a varied and multi faceted renewables portfolio.

Another great thing is that the batteries have low internal resistance, so do not age nor do they decay through multiple cycles in the way that many modern batteries using rarer elements do, thus they have a good lifespan.

I really do see this as a fantastic breakthrough, this could be comparable to the invention of the internal combustion engine or the television for the massive way it could alter how we generate and use electricity. And it gives us the ability to store electrical potential for when it is needed, rather than ramping up the power at the ‘conventional’ power stations, as happens at the moment.

I first saw this case last month and I have finally been asked to sign a petition started by one of his constituents. It only took five weeks. Better late than never.

I grew up in Thorpe Hamlet. There is no way a Tory would ever be elected here. I reckon even Tory voters within the seat would attest to that.
In 2009, Phillip Hardy won his seat as a Green county councillor for Thorpe Hamlet with 46% of the vote – taking what was in 2005 a safe Lib Dem seat, who came second with a measly 21%. The Conservatives were third on 19% ahead of Labour who scraped in with just under 14%. Labour lost 19 seats on the County Council in that ballot, which was the last before the parliamentary elections of 2010 and so the encumbents at Number 10 were punished. The Tories gained 14 seats and the Greens got 7, including of course Thorpe Hamlet. The LDs wobbled and got one gain.

In Thorpe Hamlet in 2005, the Lib Dems had won with nearly 41% of the vote, ahead of Labour’s almost 29%. The Tory candidate got just over 18% and the Greens a little more than 12%. 2009 was a dramatic swing in favour of the Green candidate, but clearly the swing had not come from the Conservative voters, but from those who were once Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters, disillusioned with the mainstream parties after the MPs’ expenses debacle and seeing positive things from Norwich City Council

As far back as I remember, Thorpe Hamlet had LD councillors. In the 2007 City Council Elections, the LD’s defeated the Greens by one vote and when there was another City Council Election the next year, the Greens took the seat with 46% and have held it since. Hardly surprising then that a Green was elected to the County Council the following year.

But Thorpe Hamlet would NEVER have elected a Conservative candidate.

This man has pissed on those who voted for him, the Green Party and democracy in the UK. If he were confident of the constitiuency’s support, he would call a for a local by-election, but he has not done so.
Someone so dishonest and power-hungry should be prevented from holding public office any further!
To those amongst you who lean towards the right of the political spectrum – you can’t surely desire to have this man standing amongst your ranks?!
Did he not lose all credibility when he changed his party affiliation?
If as it seems, he is capable of reversing his political bias from left to right without regret, hesitation or remorse, what damage might he do if allowed to keep his job?
Who’s to say he won’t do it again, should some new opportunity for self-advancement present itself?
What kind of beast could he become, were such low moral fortitude combined with mercenary Conservativism?

If you are resident in Norfolk (UK), please signthis petition and any like it. Help end the disdain with which you, the electorate, are held by some of those who seek political office.

I picked this up on Middle East Transparent’s English language website. It reflects a brutality that seems to persist in so many parts of the world, particularly – as we have seen, throughout the Middle East over the last year or so.

The case has been ongoing since last March. It is clearly in response to “a complaint filed by Amal Movement against The Lebanese Centre for Human Rights (CLDH), following their publication on February 10, 2011 of a report entitled Arbitrary Detention and Torture : the bitter reality of Lebanon.”

Over sixty pages, the report’s authors detailed systematic abuse, arbitrary detention and torture by the security services, particularly from Amal Movement affilliated officers. The Amal Movement was the military wing of a major Syrian-backed Shia Faction from the Lebanese Wars. Hizbollah is an offshoot and reluctant ally of this bunch. After the Taif Agreement brought an end to the Civil War, around 9,000 of their 14,000-16,000 forces joined the new Lebanese Army and security services.

The general director of the Palestinian Human Rights Organisation (PHRO), Ghassan Abdallah and Hatem Meqdadi have been detained, harassed and interrogated with Meqdadi held for four days and subjected to conditions the US playfully like to call ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ and which the rest of us know as torture.

Of course, such abuses aren’t unique to Lebanon.

While the whole world proclaimed the marvel of ‘free and democratic elections in Egypt’, the military rulers – who have never released their grip on the reins of power – took steps to silence dissent using Mubarak’s 2002 NGO law (which will likely be amended following the elections) that has amongst it’s restrictions on operating in Egypt, a ban on receiving funding from foreign countries.

The Saudis meanwhile, seemingly detain Saudis (subjects/citizens) and torture them just because they are disabled.

As for Syria, they are utterly debased – maniacally clinging to power by slaughtering unarmed protestors and arresting journalists, human rights observers and others. HRW has documented reports of abductions, torture (sometimes to death), executions…

Such corruption of the human spirit seems to be endemic throughout the world, and as the last few decades of conflict and then last year’s Arab Spring have shown us, it is deeply rooted in many Arab societies, in most cases because the military see their role not as protectors and defenders, but as overseers and dicators – the ones who know and decide what is best for everyone. Until the military grasp on the balls of Middle Eastern politics becomes a gentle cupping, we will continue to see such abuses and the factionalism and petty squabbles that divide otherwise strong nations or prevent the oppressed from making a unified stance shall continue.

Yesterday, Human Rights Watch issued their World Report 2012, which I’ll write about some more in a couple of days, once I’ve read it. Click the link and watch their Arab Spring video and download the PDF, if you are interested. It’s pretty slick and it starkly shows the importance of social media in the political upheavals of the past twelve months.

Skeptical Science is a blog I like to follow. It’s packed with excellent reviews and a broad overview of the established knowledge base and developments in Environmental and Climate Change Science. They publish daily essays that are often a fantastically educational read and today’s contribution explains the science and current state of climate modelling. Useful when you need to explain the mechanics to a skeptic.